9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent, authority for clarification under Section 94 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short the KVAT Act), to the extent it withdraws Ext.P4 - an earlier order of clarification issued by the same authority on the same subject matter. The facts in the writ petition would indicate that Ext.P4 order dated 09.11.2015, was issued by the 1st respondent clarifying that no taxable event under the head of "transfer of right to use goods" would arise in respect of rent received for mounting flex boards of advertisements on the hoardings erected by the applicant. It would appear that the said clarification was issued by the 1st respondent without noticing Ext.P6 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, which had taken a contrary view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p before another Division Bench, the said Division Bench took note of Ext.P5 order passed by the 1st respondent, withdrawing the earlier clarification (Ext.P4), and found that, in view of the earlier clarification having been withdrawn, Ext.P6 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court would govern the issue regarding imposition of penalty. The said Division Bench, therefore, dismissed the writ petitions. In the present writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner would limit his contentions to the legality of the 1st respondent withdrawing the earlier clarification (Ext.P4) in the subsequent proceedings under Section 94 of the KVAT Act. It is pointed out that the power to cancel or modify an order passed by the authority for clarifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity in the 1st respondent withdrawing Ext.P4 order through Ext.P5 order. It is also contended that the non disclosure of Ext.P6 judgment would, at any rate, have vitiated Ext.P4 order as contemplated in Section 94(8) of the KVAT Act. Attractive though the contentions may appear at first blush, I am of the view that, even if the irregularities pointed out by the learned Government Pleader did exist, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have brought the anomaly to the notice of a judicial forum for the purposes of setting aside Ext.P4 order of clarification, which, according to them, was illegal. The said course of action not having been adopted by the respondents, permitting the 1st respondent to withdraw an earlier order passed by him, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
